Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Technical
1900D Operational Considerations >

1900D Operational Considerations

Notices
Technical Technical aspects of flying

1900D Operational Considerations

Old 01-07-2009, 04:00 PM
  #1  
New Hire
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 2
Default 1900D Operational Considerations

1900D questions

Ladies and gentleman, I have found this site very informative and useful. I hope you all can answer a couple of quick questions regarding the 1900D who fly it frequently can answer. First, I read the thread about V1 engine failures and how some of the regional planes could be a “handful” with an engine failure at this critical point. I was wondering how the 1900D handles this situation? Being based on a King Air I assume it has auto feathering like the King Airs but if the auto feathering fails or it doesn’t have it, how does the plane fair? I prefer to think in terms of worst case scenario and go from there.

My best guess is having more power than a King Air is a good thing in this situation. Please look at these questions from the perspective of a Part 91 flown aircraft, not in regional airline service. Further assume single pilot operations, which is accepted in Part 91 operations. Assume MTOW, but in reality the plane would not be operated anywhere near gross weight.

I ask as I have an acquaintance that is considering using one as a personal corporate aircraft. Based on all I have read regarding the plane, it is essentially a super sized King Air and flies similarly with more power and presumably more margin of safety. Also, based on what I have read here, it is a good performer at lighter weights, which is how it would be flown in this case. It seems like it would be pretty good in that role as with full tanks it would have respectable range, decent speed, twin-engine safety as opposed to a TBM or PC-12, and overbuilt as it was originally for regional airline use. I don’t think you can touch it for efficiency in moving 8-10 people over 1500 nm or less without spending way more money. Yes, it could have a better pressurization differential and could be quieter but would be comparable to a King Air regarding noise I assume (I have never been in a King Air only the 1900) it seems like it would be a Super King Air used in this way, plus something a little different. Assuming someone could fly a 200 or 350 King Air competently, I assume a transition to a 1900 would be reasonable. If this is not the case in your opinions, please say so.

Having flown it in regional airlines operations and after being converted to a corporate interior, would you be comfortable flying it single pilot?

Any thoughts or opinions of these questions and more importantly the V1 question along with general flying qualities is very appreciated. Thank you very much for your feedback and insight.

Mike
1900fan is offline  
Old 01-07-2009, 05:28 PM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 867
Default

I think the exec interior is only 8 pax so weight should be ok. Check on getting a LAV!!

Get the sheet metal tight before you paint it. Loose rivets will smoke on a nice new paint job.

I think Elliot Aviation has an STC for a cabin noise reduction system for the KA. Check it out!

I hear an AP is not much more since the FD system is there.

You have to watch the engines. From what I understand, if you are looking at a recently parked aircraft, the on condition TBO is only approved for that operator. Depending on the insurance you carry, the -67Ds might need overhauls.

It is possible for a 91 operator to get an MEL -- for a retired Airlines you have to have it. That thing will break on you at the most inconvenient time.

Have a blast!
deadstick35 is offline  
Old 01-08-2009, 06:55 AM
  #3  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 31
Default

B1900D is an impressive performer. It is certified for single pilot operations so any -200 or -350 experience would make the transition a non event.
There are no control issues with engine failures at heavy weights. Or even slightly over...
Much heavier control column feel than a C model but overall a good people mover and another solid Beech product.
Piak is offline  
Old 01-09-2009, 10:18 AM
  #4  
Flying Farmer
 
Ewfflyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's
Posts: 3,160
Default

No offense, but single or twin PT6 engines are about the most reliable turbo-prop engine out there, as far as comparisons to PC12's/TBM's to any twin. Just my 2 cents.

As far as the corporate 1900, both Meijer and Menards use these planes for corp shuttle duties, and they have a nice baggage space in the rear also!!!

If you're going to be light loading, why not stay with the more common Be20 or 350? Easier to crew, cheaper to operate, better looking, etc... I don't know the speeds on the 1900 either.
Ewfflyer is offline  
Old 01-09-2009, 10:58 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 187
Default

V1 Cuts with the Auto FX is a non event at any weight. V1 Cuts with flaps 17 and max weight, without the auto feather are a bit more interesting. The A/C does not fly untill you get the prop feathered. Sea level single engine climb rates are greater than 1000fpm. Mmo is .48 Vne is 248, Vso is 88. Only certified up to 25K, the pressurization is weak. Holds seal level to just over 12K. It is much more stable than the smaller King airs, and would be an easy transition for any king air pilot. If you've got any specific questions, please feel free to ask.
rightseater is offline  
Old 01-11-2009, 12:56 PM
  #6  
New Hire
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 2
Default

Hello all,
Thank you all for your feedback. I thought I would wait a few days to see what I was told before commenting further. Excellent point about the on condition TBO possibly not transferring and potential initial overhauls being needed. I had not considered the former before. It would definitely be a retired airline plane most likely so your advice is greatly appreciated. As far as the Elliot aviation STC for a KA, that looks pretty good but is not listed as an approved STC for a 1900 as I only found five listed for the 1900.

Ewfflyer,
No offense taken as I prefer the no BS, no sugar coating answers as opposed to hearing what people think I want to hear. If someone with more experience than I thinks I have made some faulty assumptions, I want to hear about it. As we know, the beech is typically flown by some of the lowest time professional pilots in the regional arena and with a pretty good safety record. That means a lot to me. I am well aware of the reliability and great reputation of both PT6 engines in general and the top quality aircraft the TBM/PC12 (and I like both planes a lot) are, but I prefer a twin as it will be going to the Caribbean so over water passages will be at least somewhat common. As low as the risk may be statistically speaking, I want the other engine for additional piece of mind, knowing what it will do to operating costs.

You make a valid point about if being regularly operated light why not stick with a KA 200 or 350. I guess part of the appeal is something a little different that is manageable by a non professional pilot and the extra stability and strong redundancy you get with a plane used by the regional carriers (not to say the KA are weak by any means as they are exceptional aircraft). I also believe acquisition costs will be lower on a 1900 as opposed to a KA, especially the newer ones. I will try to get in touch with the flight dept of Meijer and try to take a pilot out to lunch or something as their corporate headquarters is relatively close to me.

My understanding is high speed cruise is around 270-280 knots (I know max cruise is listed as 284 for the D). I haven’t found any definitive numbers on fuel burn but in cruise I hope it will be in the range of 700-900 pph up at 25k. All I have read says max range with full fuel is “well over 1000nm” but that is a little vague. My max range mission is 1321nm so I am hoping that is doable at say 1000 lbs under gross. Most other missions will be under 600nm. My calculations show a useful load of around 1900 lbs with full fuel.

My research also has shown a king air 350 to have fuel flow of 800 pph for the first hour and 600 pph thereafter (yes, you can get down to around 460 pph at 35k). Can you tell my how the 1900 is going to compare to this? Will the 1900 be significantly worse, say 1000 pph +? Are my numbers pretty close here? Let me know what you think.

And again, thank you for you input. It greatly appreciated.

Mike
1900fan is offline  
Old 01-11-2009, 04:24 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 867
Default

If there isn't something for the 1900 specifically, see if they can 337 it.

After some more thought, unless you really need the capacity, look at the 200/300/350 for this reason: resale. You are looking at $1.5-1.9M for a beat-up airliner. When I checked a few years ago, the really plush Oasis interior for the Caravan was $170k. I dunno, double that for a bigger plane. So, on the high side, you have $1.9M for the airframe, $350k for the interior (don't forget the LAV!), and another $20-30k (?) for paint. In two years, if you have to dump the plane, your market will be very small. Most buyers look for a 19 pax or cargo hauler. They might pay $1.9 for a turn-key plane, but the $350k interior goes in the garbage. It's one of those "That's nice, but it doesn't matter to me" kinda things.
deadstick35 is offline  
Old 01-12-2009, 04:33 AM
  #8  
Line Holder
 
r1830's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Pilot & A & P
Posts: 60
Default performance

At low altitudes (5000 feet and lower), plan on 1200 pph. At FL250, fuel burn set to 600 pph results in approximately 240 kts true airspeed. If you increase the power to 400 pph (33% increase) you only achieve 20 to 30 kts (about 10-12 %) increase in true airspeed. I flew Bellingham to Anchorage in just over 5 hours at 25,000 feet using 600pph. I landed with about 1300 to 1400 pounds of fuel left.

The pressurization is Ok, but I have seen better systems. After takeoff, cabin is climbing at about 2,000 fpm and when the pressurization controller finally starts to work, it shifts to about 2,000 to 3,000 fpm down before it stabilizes.
The system requires constant monitoring and adjustment during climbs and descents. For descent, turn the pressurization controller slowly and the cabin rate of descent will not spike. If turned quickly it will spike to about 2,000 fpm for a moment. It is definitely noticeable.

The airplane has a lot of power. I have made Sea Level to FL250 in just over 11 minutes.

However, I echo the sentiment of single engine performance without the prop feathered; it will not climb until it is feathered. The Autofeather system is not on the MEL for good reason. With power at idle, props forward and in level flight, the airplane will stall in a matter of seconds. It slows down very quickly. Single Pilot with all systems functioning would be fine. Add a malfunction or two and you could have your hands full. If operating it Single Pilot I would recommend an autopilot to reduce your work load in hard IFR or for abnormal situations. It can be easy to get task saturated in the aircraft and the checklists can be cumbersome.

In my own opinion, the airplane was manufactured by a general aviation company (not made for airline use), seems piecemealed together with the parts of several different aircraft and lacks some common design features that would significantly improve reliability and functionality.
I enjoy flying the airplane when everything is working, but if operating in a wintertime environment be careful.

The wet wing is prone to cold soaking at altitude, and requires deice even when the OAT is above freezing. I believe most other king airs and the C model have bladder tanks and are not prone to this issue. I have had a 1/4 to 1/2 inch of clear ice on top of the wing where there is fuel when it was +2 degrees C and raining. It was freezing shortly after contact on that area of the main wing outboard the nacelle only. I always do a tactile check of the wing just outboard the engine nacelles for that purpose. Also, on clear days with close temperature dew point spreads, the wing will frost over that same area as well when no other aircraft except maybe an MD-80 will (a factor in quick turning the aircraft after a long flight at altitude). For the same reason, residual ice picked up inflight sticks to the leading edge of the same portion of the main wing, when the rest of the aircraft including unprotected surfaces (e.g. nose radome and vertical stabilizer) are clean.

Good luck in your decision, hope this helps.

Last edited by r1830; 01-12-2009 at 06:34 PM. Reason: spelling
r1830 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices